The Green Tsunami: A Tidal Wave of Eco-Babble Drowning Us All (6 page)

To give you a comparison, the U.N.’s IPCC scientists have, for
many years, produced their own charts and graphs to prove the theory
of “Global Warming”. Their purpose is not to relay scientific findings,
as we shall soon demonstrate. The goal of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, sponsored by the U.N., was to produce materials
that bolstered the U.N. Agenda 21 environmental claims. The most
well-known of their graphs is the “hockey stick graph” made popular
by Al Gore in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Dr. Spencer’s graph depicts temperatures recorded by satellites since
the orbiters were launched in 1979. The second graph reconstructs
the Earth’s Temperatures back to a time when man’s knowledge of
astro-physics was, shall we say, somewhat more crude than it is today.

We have learned a great deal about the inner workings of the
U.N.’s IPCC climate scientists who work at an obscure English East
Anglia University. For years, the IPCC scientific work was shrouded
in mystery and many marveled that this small group of scientists with
glowing credentials and the stamp of approval from the U.N. constantly seemed to contradict the research of men like Roy Spencer and
thousands of other scientists. How could the IPCC prove, beyond
any shadow of a doubt, there is a fragile canopy of atmosphere surrounding our earth that it is trapping gases, which they named “The
Greenhouse Effect”, and that those gases are warming our planet at a
lethal and increasingly rapid pace? As we now know, the scientists were
“cooking the books”.

In 2009, computer hackers (whose identity remains to this day a very
well guarded secret) entered the dark recesses of the scientist’s email
accounts and revealed a global environmental scandal that became
known as “Climategate”. Over 1,000 of their secret communications
were made public in Phase One and a few years later, a second release
of documents was made public. Page upon page revealed how British
and American scientists were manipulating data. As they programmed
their computers to predict the earth’s impending climate change
catastrophe on the “hockey stick graph” and others, they included
statistics that proved their hypothesis while conveniently omitting the
rest of the data.

Garbage in, garbage out.
We also learned that millions of dollars of “research grants” were
awarded to the various IPCC scientists over the years with but one
stipulation;
their work must prove the “Global Warming” theory
with science that was irrefutable.
If anyone dare to come snooping
around under something called the U.S. Freedom of Information Act,
they were told, “Simply ignore them. You work for the U.N. and we
don’t have any stinkin’ Freedom of Information Act.”
Governments around the globe, including our own, unquestioningly believed everything the IPCC team published. Anyone who
challenged their data was ridiculed by a compliant global media. In
turn, national governments poured billions, perhaps trillions of dollars
into the phony science that eventually trickled down the bureaucratic
food chain as local and state governments based their planning models
on the flawed East Anglia University research.
Now, two decades after the theory of global warming was first floated
in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, the global agenda to impose The
Brundtland Commission’s “Our Common Future”, Hannah Strong’s
“Earth Charter” and her hubby’s call for a socialist/communist economic new world order, a “Green Tsunami” of alternative energy
solutions and strategic “sustainable” planning are being packaged for
local consumption under the name “The International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI), pronounced “Ick’- lee”.
We will discuss ICLEI and many of their shrouded U.N. “Agenda 21”
environmental programs in the following chapter.
Once again, the U.N. has strategically chosen not to identify
ICLEI, much like the IPCC, calling it an “International” group. But
with a few clicks of your computer’s mouse you can easily access the
ICLEI website on the internet and learn that the international movement is yet again, another aggressive U.N. organization. They are
using their immense global power and lots of international money
to implement “Agenda 21” in local communities throughout the
world creating more basic building blocks for their vision of a One
World Government. As we continue collecting the dots, the “Green
Tsunami” gains energy.

How could the nations of the world be convinced to forsake their
independence and sovereignty and voluntarily join a One World
Government or a New World Order?

Throughout man’s history, dictators have used force, both in military and economics, to grind those who are weaker into surrendering
their national allegiance and joining a march toward world domination. But short of a military invasion, or the threat of one, would
any sovereign government simply relinquish its independence and
sovereignty?

That problem has been solved by a new globalist concept known
as “regionalism”. For a variety of reasons, nations of the world might
be convinced to join regional alliances because once they do; regions
can easily be linked together. Twentieth century Europe is an excellent example.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the “perestroika” of the Soviet
Union, two regionalism concepts were introduced in Europe; militarily, the NATO alliance and economically, the European Common
Market or the European Union (EU).

Since the birth of the EU, all local monetary currencies—the
pound, the lira, the punt—have been folded into the newly minted
Euro. Passports and visas are no longer needed to travel between
Britain and Turkey. Trade restrictions, labor laws, tariffs and other
economic factors have been folded into the fabric of the EU, while
NATO forms the military umbrella. But all has not gone as planned
in the EU. In fact, England and Germany, with decades of experience
keeping less dependable partners in other nations afloat, is now considering withdrawing.

Nonetheless, regionalism accelerated toward the end of the 20th
century. The North American Free Trade Association linked Canada,
Mexico and the United States. In Tokyo, there is a similar Pan-Asian
Trading Community. The world is gradually moving toward regionalism and the global governance promoters still believe that regional
governments can more easily and seamlessly be blended into a New
World Order, bypassing national sovereignty.

Consider how many times America has refused to move unilaterally
when confronted with a military challenge. Before taking defensive
or offensive action, the government has consulted with “the international community” or “our partners” to form mostly imaginary
coalition forces that respond to threats.

A French businessman who served as the director of the European
Commission for Trade, Director-General Pascal Lamy, currently
heads the U.N.’s World Trade Organization. In a speech at Oxford
University on March 8, 2012, Mr. Lamy summed up the current view
of regionalism leading to globalism by stating, “In the absence of truly
global government, global governance results from the action of several states. It is inter-national, between nations. In other words, global
governance is the globalization of local governance.”

The Director-General further explained new Regionalism leads
directly to a “one world government” based on a “one world economy”, and described his theory as a three sided triangle:

Side One of the Triangle
Trade groups like the G-20 replaced the outdated G-8. As new
members joined the group, G-20’s economic influence has expanded
to include more partners aligned with common goals and actions—a
microcosm of regionalism.

Side Two of the Triangle
The United Nations. This global body will lead and direct the
voluntary cooperation among regional groups for mutual aid and
assistance, resulting in UN global governance.
Side Three of The Lamy Triangle
“Member-driven International Organizations”. Non-governmental
agencies (NGO’s) will meet to solve local and regional problems and
provide specialized rules, policies and/or programs that will provide
regional solutions. The step from regionalism to globalism is viewed by
Lamy and others as merely a small baby step to a “New World Order”.

What Lamy described was a U.N. project launched in New York
in 1990, one that has been steadily growing for 20 plus years. The
Organization’s motto is, “think globally and act locally”. This relatively
unpublicized agency specifically targets the cooperative interrelationship of local governments all over the earth. By the thousands, cities
and counties, most times unwittingly, have signed on to the new U.N.
agency, voluntarily paid their dues to join and are now actively implementing Agenda 21’s global goals into local government. Here is how
it happened.

Two years before the 1992 Rio Earth Summit convened with Strong
and Brundtland’s synchronized socialist influence, the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, known as ICLEI was created by the United Nations. Alternately, it is known as “The World
Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future” and by
now, your local city or county government might well be a “Gold
Star” member.

In its first two decades, ICLEI has been able to establish 14 global
offices. They now have members in 70 different nations with more
than 1,220 local governments signed on as members. ICLEI claims
their member organizations around the world represent a total of
569,885,000 people with a substantial portion of the world’s population pledging through their local governments, to support the goals
of the U.N.’s Agenda 21.

At the ICLEI website, their goal is laid out quite clearly: “ICLEI
supports local governments in finding and implementing local solutions to global challenges”. They go on to to explain, “Our programs
and projects advocate participatory, long-term strategic planning
processes that address local sustainability (there’s that key code word
again) while protecting global common goods. This approach links
local action and solutions to the global challenges we are facing and
therefore also links local action to global goals and targets.”

Such a grand, global scheme requires both money and international prestige to accomplish its goals. The sponsors of ICLEI offer
the U.N. both influence and money. Among the U.N.’s ICLEI sponsors are United Cities and Local Governments, The World Economic
Forum, The World Bank, The Clinton Climate Initiative, the World
Conservation Union, and many other major and well-known global
environmental groups.
NOTE: (Bill and Hillary’s charity meet
annually in New York City the week prior to the opening of the
U.N. General Assembly. Attendance is by invitation only and
closed to the media.)

Naively, many believe these well-known environmental organizations are simply a collection of well meaning bird watchers wearing
funny hats, sensible shoes and taking pictures of exotic species while
strolling through local parks and wetlands. Nothing could be further
from the truth. In fact, here are some of the members from President
Clinton’s “Council On Sustainable Development” mentioned in
Chapter 2.

The granddaddy of environmental groups is the Sierra Club, headquartered in San Francisco and founded in 1892 by John Muir, iconic
naturalist and Yosemite Valley hiker. But in 1969, a schism within the
group forced long time member David Browner to be removed from
the Sierra Club board for being too controversial. He immediately
formed his own environmental organization, Friends of the Earth.

Less one think Friends of the Earth is a laid back group of bird
watchers, their website affirms they are “an environmental nongovernmental organization (NGO) with observer status at several
intergovernmental organizations (such as FAO, IMO, UNEP), and
the International Whaling Commission.” They state their objectives
quite clearly, “to protect the Earth against deterioration and to repair
damage inflicted upon the environment as a result of human activity
and negligence; to preserve the Earth’s ecological, cultural, and ethnic
diversity; to increase public participation and democratic decision
making in the protection of the environment and the management of
natural resources; to achieve social, economic, and political justice and
equal access to resources and opportunities on a local, national, and
international level; and to promote environmental sustainable development on a local, national, and global level.”

Friends of the Earth proudly take credit for the media campaign
that successfully halted construction of the Canadian XL Pipeline in
the United States. The group is supported by an incredible 4,034,240
members worldwide.

Another well-known environmental activist group, Greenpeace,
dates back to the early 1970s evolving from the anti-war movement
and anti-nuclear protests. Today, they are also a non-governmental (environmental) organization, another “NGO”, with a goal to
“ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity and
focuses its campaigning on world wide issues such as global warming,
deforestation, overfishing, commercial whaling, genetic engineering
and anti-nuclear issues.” They claim to raise money from “2.9 million
individual supporters and foundation grants”.

But the environmental group considered by many to be the most
powerful in the world is the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) headquartered in New York City. It is a coalition of 300
environmental attorneys backed by a few
carefully selected scientists
who provide data for the group’s lawsuits.

NRDC spokespersons appear routinely in the mainstream media
and are frequently quoted as expert environmentalists. But it is their
team of activist attorneys who file environmental lawsuits with the
courts nationally, regionally and locally. Next time you hear of an environmental legal action, chances are the mega-lawyer firm, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, is involved.